| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Fleshner, K., et al.
(författare)
-
Comparison of Physician-Documented Versus Patient-Reported Collection of Comorbidities Among Patients With Prostate Cancer Upon First Visit to the Urology Clinic
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Jco Clinical Cancer Informatics. - : American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). - 2473-4276. ; 2
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose To determine whether patient-reported collection of comorbidities online is sufficiently accurate to warrant use as part of a physician-reviewed, baseline medical history. Methods Comorbidities were collected for a sample of 213 new prostate cancer visits to our urology clinic through an online survey (called Baseline Medical History) before the clinical encounter. The frequency distributions of comorbidities as reported by patients before physician review were compared with those documented by physicians for a sample of 298 consecutive patients presenting to the same urology clinic before the survey went live. Results The overall frequency distribution of comorbidities and life expectancy estimates were similar between the two groups. A few comorbidity categories were reported with higher frequency in the patient-reported group compared with the physician-documented group, including neurologic comorbidities (7.5% v 1.7%; difference 6%; 95% CI, 2.0% to 10%; P = .001) and back pain (24% v 13%; difference 12%; 95% CI, 4.8% to 19%; P = .001). A similar trend was seen for vascular conditions, although the difference did not meet conventional levels of statistical significance. Genitourinary comorbidities, including problems with urination and erectile dysfunction, were better captured by the physician-reported group compared with the patient-reported group (68% v 53%; difference 15%; 95% CI, 7% to 24%; P = .001), as were other musculoskeletal comorbidities (8.7% v 1.9%; difference 7%; 95% CI, 3.2% to 11%; P = .001). Conclusion Patients completing a medical history, at their own pace and in the comfort of their own home, provide relatively accurate and complete information, even before physician review. Patient reporting of comorbidities thus seems to be a reliable starting point for the documentation of the medical history in the clinic.
|
|
| 3. |
- Frid, Santiago, et al.
(författare)
-
Mapping the Evidence on the Impact of mHealth Interventions on Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients With Breast Cancer : A Systematic Review
- 2024
-
Ingår i: JCO clinical cancer informatics. - 2473-4276. ; 8
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE: To comprehensively synthesize the existing evidence concerning mHealth interventions for patients with breast cancer (BC).DESIGN: On July 30, 2023, we searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar for articles using the following inclusion criteria: evaluation of mHealth interventions in patients with cancer, at least 30 participants with BC, randomized control trials or prospective pre-post studies, determinants of health (patient-reported outcomes [PROs] and quality of life [QoL]) as primary outcomes, interventions lasting at least 8 weeks, publication after January 2015. Publications were excluded if they evaluated telehealth or used web-based software for desktop devices only. The quality of the included studies was analyzed with the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies.RESULTS: We included 30 studies (20 focused on BC), encompassing 5,691 patients with cancer (median 113, IQR, 135.5). Among these, 3,606 had BC (median 99, IQR, 75). All studies contained multiple interventions, including physical activity, tailored information for self-management of the disease, and symptom tracker. Interventions showed better results on self-efficacy (3/3), QoL (10/14), and physical activity (5/7). Lifestyle programs (3/3), expert consulting (4/4), and tailored information (10/11) yielded the best results. Apps with interactive support had a higher rate of positive findings, while interventions targeted to survivors showed worse results. mHealth tools were not available to the public in most of the studies (17/30).CONCLUSION: mHealth interventions yielded heterogeneous results on different outcomes. Identifying lack of evidence on clinical scenarios (eg, patients undergoing systemic therapy other than chemotherapy) could aid in refining strategic planning for forthcoming research endeavors within this field.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Petersson-Ahrholt, Magnus, et al.
(författare)
-
Development and Implementation of Survivorship Tools to Enable Medical Follow-Up After Childhood Cancer Treatment in Southern Sweden
- 2019
-
Ingår i: JCO clinical cancer informatics. - 2473-4276. ; 3, s. 1-6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE: Survival rates after childhood cancer have increased from 20% to 80% since the 1970s. The increased number of survivors emphasizes the importance of late effects and their monitoring. Late effects may have a strong impact on quality of life in survivors. The purpose of this study was to make key data in a quality registry available for direct clinical use, enabling health care professionals to perform efficient and appropriate long-term medical follow-up after childhood cancer treatment.METHODS: The population-based quality registry upon which this study is centered contains data on all individuals diagnosed with childhood cancer (diagnosed at 18 years of age or younger) in southern Sweden since January 1, 1970, and treatment data on 5-year survivors. Web tools, which were developed and implemented in a health care setting, generate a personalized treatment summary for each patient and enable risk group stratification of survivors.RESULTS: Generation of a personalized treatment summary and risk group stratification of survivors led to identification of women at risk for developing breast cancer as a consequence of childhood cancer treatment. Three novel cases of previously undiagnosed breast cancer were identified.CONCLUSION: The registry, together with the developed tools, enabled health care professionals to perform medical follow-up in this at-risk patient population.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
